2015 (4) TMI 1136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted by evidence for the inordinate delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. The vague reason of delay selection of Counsel is also not supported by evidence with details thereof. By following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Office of Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], we are of the view that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated to-day. 2. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue submits that even though the Applicant mentioned at para 3 of their Miscellaneous Application stated that there was a delay of 80 days, but in fact the delay was of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. He submits that the explanation furnished at para 4 of their Application is vague and not supported by any material particulars. He submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orthcoming supported by evidence for the inordinate delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal before this forum. The vague reason of delay selection of Counsel is also not supported by evidence with details thereof. Following the ratio laid by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Living Media s case(supra), we are of the view that the Applicant could not able to make out a case for condonation of the dela .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X